Liberated Text -> Congressional Record -> Nine Senators of Shame

---

Amendment No. 1991

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. President, our military is first in the world, because of the quality and training of our personnel and because of the technological sophistication of our equipment and weaponry. A large portion of the best civilian scientific minds in the Defense Department are nearing retirement age.

I rise to thank my colleagues for their support and adoption of the amendment Senator Collins and I offered to ensure that the Department maintains the workforce that it needs to stay globally competitive and invests in crucial research and development efforts.

Our amendment includes $10 million to double the committee's funding for the Department's current SMART Scholars program, which is essentially an ROTC program for the agency's civilian scientists. This represents a $17.8 million increase over the $2.5 million funding level provided last year--the program's first year in existence.

It increases by $30 million the Department's funding of basic research in science and technology, to ensure that its investment in this field is maintained and our military technology remains the best in the world.

Our amendment provides sufficient funding for the full cost of college scholarships and graduate fellowships for approximately 100 science, technology, engineering, and math students. It increases basic research in the Army, Navy, Air Force, DARPA, and National Defense Education Program. It is supported by more than 60 of the most prestigious institutions of higher education in America.

Defense Department-sponsored research has resulted in stunningly sophisticated spy satellites, precision-guided munitions, stealth equipment, and advanced radar. The research has also generated new applications in the civilian economy. The best known example is the Internet, originally a DARPA project.

Advances in military technology often have their source in the work of civilian scientists in Department of Defense laboratories. Unfortunately, a large percentage of these scientists are nearing retirement. Today, nearly one in three DOD civilian science, technical, engineering, and mathematical employee is eligible to retire. In 7 years, 70 percent will be of retirement age.

Another distressing fact is that the number of new scientists being produced by our major universities at the doctoral level each year has declined by 4 percent over the last decade. Many of those who do graduate are ineligible to work on sensitive defense matters, since more than a third of all science and engineering doctorate degrees awarded at American universities go to foreign students.

It is unlikely that retiring DOD scientists will be replaced by current private industry employees. According to the National Defense Industrial Association, over 5,000 science and engineering positions are unfilled in private industry in defense-related fields.

The Nation confronts a major math and science challenge in elementary and secondary education and in higher education as well. We are tied with Latvia for 28th in the industrialized world today in math math education, and that is far from good enough. We have fallen from 3rd in the world to 15th in producing scientists and engineers. Clearly, we need a new National Defense Education Act of the size and scope passed nearly 50 years ago.

At the very least, however, the legislation before us needs to do more to maintain our military's technological advantage. Last year, over 100 "highly rated" SMART Scholar applications were turned down because of insufficient funding. Our amendment has sufficient funds to support every one of those talented young people who want to learn and serve.

It also increases the investment in basic research in science and technology. Investments by DOD in science and technology through the 1980s helped the United States win the cold war. But funding for basic research in the physical sciences, math and engineering has not kept pace with research in other areas. Federal funding for life sciences has risen fourfold since the 1980s. Over the same period, appropriations for the physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics have remained essentially flat. Funding for basic research fell from fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 2004 by more than 10 percent in real terms.

The Defense Science Board has recommended that funding for Science and Technology reach 3 percent of total defense spending, and the administration and Congress have adopted this goal in the past. The board also recommended that 2 percent of that amount be dedicated to basic research. We must do better, and our amendment makes progress on this issue.

I thank my colleagues for recognizing the importance of this amendment and for their support in its adoption. I hope that we will continue to see similar increases in these programs in the future.

Amendment No. 1955

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have 6 minutes equally divided before the Senate's consideration of the Warner amendment. Senator Warner seeks a Senate vote on whether his amendment is germane to the bill. But before that occurs, it is my understanding the leaders may want to use some of their leadership time.

The Presiding Officer: There is now 6 minutes of debate divided on the germaneness of the Warner amendment.

The Senator from Virginia is recognized.

Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I shall divide my time equally with my colleague Senator Levin, ranking member of the committee.

Mr. President, the question of germaneness has already been, in a sense, ruled on by the Parliamentarians who said in their judgment it is germane. The question is simply do we or do we not at this time, when our Nation is at war, bring up on the appropriations bill section A of the authorization bill?

I simply say to my colleagues, I trust you--I trust you to look at this extraordinary circumstance in which we are a nation at war, needing this bill to send a message. And I trust you that the amendment process will not be abused and that we can in a reasonable period of time accommodate those amendments that might be offered as second- degree amendments, and that your bill can go forward with the vitally needed appropriations funds.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Michigan.

Mr. Levin: Mr. President, the only way we are going to be able to consider the Defense authorization bill, apparently, this year is if we offer this as an amendment and then amend it. You heard from the Senator from Alaska earlier today that this would open up the bill, the appropriations bill, to amendments, that they would be unlimited. We heard the opposite argument from our dear friend from West Virginia that this would restrict amendments on the authorization. The only way we are going to be able to have debate on amendments on the authorization bill is if we consider the authorization bill now.

The leader, in his wisdom, pulled down the authorization bill when it was pending. As far as I know, there is not a decision on his part to bring that authorization bill back to the floor. How I dearly wish we could have a separate authorization bill. But we are not going to get it, except in this process.

It is amendable. I assure my friend from West Virginia that the only way we are going to debate the authorization bill on the floor of the Senate and offer amendments is if we follow this process. It is amendable. It is debatable. It is free speech at its utmost. The alternative is the absence of debate on the authorization bill.

We have been able to clear about 100 amendments, plus. We do that in the ordinary process. We do that every year on the authorization bill. We try to accommodate our colleagues. We have gone through that process. There are another dozen or so amendments which we would have to consider that we know about.

Let us follow that process. There is so much in this bill that is needed. There is a health provision in this bill and a lot of other provisions.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Alaska.

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, let me begin by saying, very succinctly, a vote against this issue of germaneness is not a vote against defense. This is the Defense appropriations bill. It is meant to carry the money to the Department of Defense and all of those involved in defense. It is not meant to carry the authorization. That is what rule XVI is all about. What we are looking at now is the Defense authorization bill being brought to this bill in part. This is not the whole bill. This is just part A; B and C were left out.

This is not going to finish debate on the authorization bill. It will only take up a part of it. There are a whole series of amendments that have been offered to the authorization bill, and, as a matter of fact, Senator Warner has offered now two packages of amendments that have been approved by himself and Senator Levin. But they have not been considered, as far as we are concerned, as amendments to the appropriations bill. But that is what they want. They want us to accept their portion of the bill plus their amendments to the bill without any consideration for anybody. This is 108 amendments en bloc, not agreed to by the managers of this bill but agreed to by the would-be managers of the Defense authorization bill.

Offering the authorization bill to this bill without an agreement is an enormous precedent. I have been involved now 38 years, almost. It has never happened in my career, that a bill was brought to the appropriations bill and offered and then subject to amendment.

Often, we have taken whole bills at times and taken them to conference. Even that has been objected to by some. But normally we have taken omnibus bills. The authorizers are trying to make this an omnibus bill.

There are also other bills waiting in the wings that haven't been heard. What are we going to do with them if this process is to be followed?

But again, I want to note that a vote to find that this is germane-- and I think I understand the question of what Senator Warner said about what the Parliamentarians have done.

I make a parliamentary inquiry: Has the Parliamentarian ruled that this amendment is germane or just that it is subject to being found germane by the Senate?

The Presiding Officer: The Parliamentarian has advised that the Senator may raise a defense of germaneness.

Mr. Stevens: Defense of germaneness is available to the Senator?

The Presiding Officer: The question is then submitted to the Senate.

Mr. Stevens: A vote against this position of the Senator from Virginia would not be overturning the Chair, would it?

The Presiding Officer: It would not.

Mr. Stevens: What we have here is a situation where it is critical that we finish this bill this week. Let me tell you why.

This bill is the supplemental appropriations bill for Defense for activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror. We are in a continuing resolution period. There is no money in the continuing resolution for that part. I hope the Senate will understand that this authorization bill has no place in this bill as a bill to become amended by the processes of the Senate in the future.

The Presiding Officer: The majority leader.

Mr. Frist: Mr. President, I ask to speak on leader time.

We will in a very few minutes be coming to a vote on the question of germaneness on the Warner amendment. I want to take a few minutes to comment on two issues. One is what we have been talking about over the last 30 or 45 minutes; that is, the Defense authorization bill. And secondly, I want to make a quick comment on the germaneness issue.

We heard the distinguished Senator from West Virginia argue very strongly to have a freestanding Defense authorization bill come to the floor, and that is the most appropriate way to handle that bill. I agree to that. In fact, we have tried to do that in the past. We spent about 4 days on the floor, and at that time, because we had well over 100 amendments, took it off the floor to be addressed at some point in the future.

We heard from the Senator from Michigan saying the only way that we believe we can deal with this is by offering it as an amendment, which has been done to the appropriations bill. I want to make it very clear I disagree with that.

First, Defense appropriations: I think the appropriate way of dealing with this very important bill is to have it as a freestanding piece of legislation. As I mentioned, we have attempted to do that in the past, and I have been trying very hard to do that over the last couple of weeks. We had an offer on the floor that both the Democratic leader and the chairman and ranking member are well aware of, as most Members in our caucus are; that is, we would bring the Defense authorization bill to the floor as a freestanding bill, with 12 amendments to either side with second-degree amendments allowed under a time agreement.

Those amendments we have asked to be related or within the jurisdiction of that particular committee. That is what we have been working with. We have been waiting and working all day. We have for the last about 8 or 9 days been waiting for a response from the other side of the aisle. I understand the other side of the aisle cannot agree with that unanimous consent request. I do propound it, in large part, to let all of our colleagues know we have been working on it, and we feel strongly there is a way to bring this Defense authorization bill up freestanding with appropriate amendments.

With that, I will, at this point in time, propound that unanimous consent to make this clear. I ask consent, when the Senate resumes consideration of S. 1042, the Defense authorization bill, it be considered under the following limitations. All of the pending amendments be withdrawn and the bill be considered as follows: The only first-degree amendments in order be up to 12 amendments to be offered by the two leaders or their designees; provided further that the amendments be within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services and that these amendments be subject to second degrees, which are to be relevant to the amendment to which they have offered; provided further that the first-degree amendments be limited to 1 hour of debate equally divided in the usual form, with any second degrees limited to 30 minutes of debate equally divided.

I further ask that there then be 2 hours of general debate on the bill divided between the two managers; provided further that the amendments be offered on a rotating basis, and if an amendment is not available at the conclusion of the previous amendment, then the amendment no longer be in order.

Finally, I ask consent, at the expiration of that time and the disposition of the above amendments, the bill be read the third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on the passage of the bill as amended, if amended, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. Reid: Of course, I am going to object, but I want to use some of my leader time to talk about the travesty before the Senate at this time.

The Committee on Armed Services completed their work on this bill around the 1st of May, give or take a day or two. For 5 months, we have been trying to get this bill to the floor. For Members to cry crocodile tears that this might take an extra day or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5, we need only look at the history of the Senate.

I heard the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia. I agree with him. Can anyone imagine the Senate not having time to do the Defense authorization bill? We have men and women, as we speak, being shot at driving down roads and darkened streets in Iraq not knowing if they will make it home--because of a roadside bomb--home to their billet for that evening.

We have almost 2,000 men and women who have been killed in Iraq. We have had 15 to 20,000 wounded. Shouldn't we take a little time to talk about the work done by the duly constituted committee of the Senate, the Committee on Armed Services, take a look at what we need to do on a policy basis?

I am a proud member of the Committee on Appropriations. I have been on this committee since the day I got here. I am proud of it. It is the best committee in the Senate. But the Senate Committee on Appropriations does not run everything around here. Other committees work as hard as we do and have the right to have the matters they work on in committee heard.

We have devoted basically one day to this bill. It was pulled because of gun liability.

Now, in years past, we have worked our way through this. It has not been easy, but we have done it. The 10-year average: in the last 10 years, we have averaged 133 amendments, and we have averaged 14 rollcalls per bill. Why? Because we have had the same managers for a long time. They know how to work through these amendments. There is some give-and-take and some unhappy people, but we respect these two men. We work our way through it. That is the way it has been for 10 years.

The average for hours of debate on this bill is 47\1/4\ hours. We have spent as much as 88 hours. When did we do that? Last year. We spent 88 hours on this bill last year. We had 196 amendments.

The point I make is that the real issue here--my two dear friends, the senior Senator from Virginia and the senior Senator from Michigan, think it is defense matters. It is not. It is Katrina. That is what it is about. We want to have a vote on an independent bipartisan commission to figure out what went wrong down in the gulf coast. We have not been allowed to have a vote on that. All we want is a vote. The only way we can do it is have a bill of substance, not one on an appropriations bill, so we can offer the amendment.

So this is a system that works just fine. The Senate was not set up to be convenient. It was not set up to have short periods of time to work. It was set up to do the business of this country. It has worked pretty well for more than 200 years.

One of the things we have traditionally done in time of war or peace is the Defense authorization bill.

So here it is, I have been to this floor I don't know how many times, but many, many times since last May, saying, Let's do a defense authorization bill. I can remember talking about one of my trips to the hospital and seeing the people in bed and how I felt I owed them something to come here and ask for time to hear their views. And they have views as to what is good and bad in Iraq. I have been here many times. I have added up weeks with the ranking member trying to get some way to the floor. And here at this time of night, as we are winding things down, we get a unanimous consent request that everyone knows is going to be objected to.

The Senator from West Virginia pretty well knows how to express himself. He may come from coal-mining families. He may have been an orphan. But he knows how to talk. He explained in very good detail why we cannot have the Senate run similar to the House of Representatives.

I want the record to reflect that the Defense authorization bill should have been debated a long time ago. We are ready to debate it any time. We are willing to enter into time agreements on amendments, but to come here tonight and say we are going to do 12 amendments, does anybody object--what I should have done is not object and have that side of the aisle watch them go to the ceiling. They would not like it either.

I am standing here and saying, I not only object, I object 1,000 times, until we get back to being Senators and doing things the way we have done.

The number of amendments, 196 last year. We spent 16 days on it; in 2003, 5 days, 75 amendments; back in 1997, 8 days, 120 amendments, 44 hours. Couldn't we spend a little bit of time on this bill?

The answer is, no, we are going to do the appropriations bill.

I know appropriations. As I have said, I have been on the committee for a long time. But as much as I love my committee assignment--it is the only committee I have anymore; I gave them all up with this job, but I love the Committee on Appropriations. I repeat, there are other committees that are as important as the Committee on Appropriations. The problem is, we have strict rules of how appropriations bills are handled, for obvious reasons.

I want the record to reflect I do my best, and sometimes that is not good enough, to be a partner with my friend, the majority leader. I don't want this statement I make to reflect on him personally. I am talking about the process that comes about as a result of him being a leader. I don't like the process. I think we could have done it better. I think we should have done this bill. I could be wrong, but I say to my chair and my distinguished friend, I think the only amendment we have had in this is one dealing with Boy Scouts--four others--and that was offered by the distinguished majority leader. I know it is well- intentioned, but I don't think it had much to do with the Defense authorization bill.

Let's let the record reflect I object. I object. I object.

The Presiding Officer: The majority leader.

Mr. Frist: Mr. President, the objection we heard was to a unanimous consent.

Mr. Reid: I have a unanimous consent request that I should have made, that we resume consideration of Defense authorization upon disposition of the Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. Frist: I object.

The Presiding Officer: The objection is heard.

Mr. Frist: Mr. President, the unanimous consent I propounded that was objected to by the other side is exactly what we have been working on the last couple of weeks. It did say we would have a freestanding bill to bring a very important bill to the floor. We have spent several days, I believe 4 days, on that bill in the past. I had 24 amendments, 12 to either side, plus second-degree amendments, of which there is no limit for. But it was objected to.

We will continue to work in that regard because I believe at some point we will be able to address that bill. What we will vote on, in hopefully a couple of minutes, is the germaneness of the Warner amendment, the authorization bill. The real challenge is if this bill is ruled germane, it will bog down what we are trying to do. There can be an endless number of amendments that are attached if it is germane; 130 have been filed. There would be unlimited second-degree amendments that could be applied toward the Warner amendment if that is found to be germane.

The appropriate way to deal with the Warner amendment is as a freestanding authorization bill. I agree with Senator Warner. We need to do that, and we will work toward that in the future. I am disappointed the other side will not allow us to do it as a freestanding bill. Institutionally, if we start taking the huge authorization bills and start dumping them into the appropriations bill, the appropriations process, which is already difficult enough, is going do come to a grinding halt.

Therefore, I ask my colleagues to vote that the Warner amendment be not germane, joining the chairman and the ranking Member of the bill as well as Senator Byrd, that this is not germane, and if it is not germane, it will allow us to continue on with the Defense appropriations bill in a disciplined way to complete, hopefully, by the end of Friday.

Mr. Warner: Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

The Presiding Officer: They have not.

Mr. Warner: I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. Thune: Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The Presiding Officer: The Chair, under Senate rule XVI, now submits to the Senate the question raised by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner: Namely, is his amendment No. 1955 germane or relevant to any legislative language already in the House-passed bill?

The yeas and nays have been ordered.

The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. Durbin: I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) is necessarily absent.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Coleman): Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 247 Leg.]

YEAS--49
Akaka	Chambliss	Graham	Lincoln	Salazar
Allen	Clinton	Hagel	Lugar	Sarbanes
Baucus	Collins	Inhofe	McCain	Schumer
Bayh	Cornyn	Jeffords	Nelson (FL)	Sessions
Biden	Dayton	Johnson	Nelson (NE)	Snowe
Bingaman	Dodd	Kennedy	Obama	Stabenow
Boxer	Dole	Kerry	Pryor	Talent
Cantwell	Durbin	Lautenberg	Reed	Thune
Carper	Ensign	Levin	Reid	Warner
Chafee	Feingold	Lieberman	Rockefeller
NAYS--50
Alexander	Cochran	Feinstein	Kyl	Santorum
Allard	Coleman	Frist	Landrieu	Shelby
Bennett	Conrad	Grassley	Leahy	Smith
Bond	Craig	Gregg	Lott	Specter
Brownback	Crapo	Harkin	Martinez	Stevens
Bunning	DeMint	Hatch	McConnell	Sununu
Burns	DeWine	Hutchison	Mikulski	Thomas
Burr	Domenici	Inouye	Murkowski	Vitter
Byrd	Dorgan	Isakson	Murray	Voinovich
Coburn	Enzi	Kohl	Roberts	Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Corzine

The Presiding Officer: On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 50. The Senate has voted the amendment not germane, and it falls for that reason.

Mr. Frist: Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. Domenici: I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1933

The Presiding Officer: There are now 6 minutes evenly divided on the vote with respect to the Bayh amendment. Who yields time?

Mr. Stevens: What is the pending business?

The Presiding Officer: Amendment No. 1933 offered by the Senator from Indiana. There will be 6 minutes evenly divided.

The Senator from Alaska.

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, I make a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under the fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution on the budget.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Indiana.

Mr. Bayh: Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

The Presiding Officer: Is there a sufficient second?

There appears to be a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, under the previous order, this is a 10- minute vote; is that correct?

The Presiding Officer: The Senator is correct.

Is all time yielded back?

The Senator from Indiana.

Mr. Bayh: Mr. President, I thank our colleague, Senator Kennedy, for his steadfast support of this amendment. I thank our colleague, Senator Stevens, both for his courtesy at this moment and also because while we may have a substantive disagreement about this amendment, I know his heart is in the right place.

This amendment ensures that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will have the equipment they need to accomplish their mission while keeping them out of harm's way. In deciding how to vote, I ask my colleagues to consider three things. First, the lesson of Katrina and regrettably the lesson of Iraq is that our Nation, when lives are at stake, must always plan for the worst, even as we hope for the best. Unfortunately, this has not happened in Iraq. On the contrary, our Armed Forces have consistently underestimated the need for armored vehicles in that theater of war. Nine times they have underestimated the need. They are no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Regrettably, Walter Reed Army Hospital and other military hospitals are filled with the consequences of these errors. Let us not make that mistake again.

I ask my colleagues to recall the image of that brave soldier who stood up in a conversation with our Secretary of Defense, complaining about what he referred to as "hillbilly" armor, talking about our brave troops having to search through garbage dumps for the ability to defend themselves from hostile attack. We owe them better than that. Better than that is exactly what this amendment will provide. I ask for Senators' favorable consideration.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague once again, Senator Bayh, in sponsoring this amendment, No. 1933, which increases funding for the procurement of armored Tactical Wheeled Vehicles for the Army.

Together, Senator Bayh and I have worked very hard together to make sure our soldiers have what they need. In April of this year, the Senate added $150 million for additional armored vehicles in the Iraq Supplemental.

Now we want to work together to keep our troops in the field properly equipped and also make sure they have the proper equipment on hand at home to train with prior to going overseas. The money in this amendment will make sure that the Army's pre-positioned stocks are re-constituted after over 2\1/2\ years at war.

There are also funds for the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, LA. The Joint Readiness Training Center provides advance level joint training for the Army's Active and Reserve Component, Air Force and Navy forces. The training they receive simulates what they will face when deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

This issue has been divisive for far too long. All of us support our troops. We obviously want to do all we can to see that they have proper equipment, vehicles, and everything else they need to protect their lives and carry out their missions.

It's scandalous that the administration has kept sending them into battle year after year in Iraq without adequate equipment. It's scandalous that desperate parents and wives here at home have had to resort to Wal-Mart to try to buy armor and mail it to their loved ones in Iraq to protect them on the front lines. Secretary Rumsfeld has rarely been more humiliated than on his visit to Iraq last December, when a soldier had the courage to ask him why the troops had to scavenge scrap metal on the streets to protect themselves. The cheer that roared out from troops when he asked question said it all.

More than 400 troops have already died in military vehicles vulnerable to roadside bombs, grenades, and other notorious improvised explosive devices.

Many of us have visited soldiers at Walter Reed and Bethesda and seen the tragic consequences of inadequate armor. We want to ensure that parents grieving at Arlington National Cemetery no longer ask, "Why weren't more armored humvees available?"

It's taken far too long to solve this problem. We have to make sure we solve it now, once and for all. We can't keep hoping the problem will somehow go away.

In a letter last October 20, General Abizaid said, "The FY 2004 Supplemental Request will permit the services to rapidly resolve many of the equipment issues you mentioned to include the procurement of . . . Humvees."

We have been told for months that the Army's shortage of Up-Armored Humvees was a thing of the past. The Army could have, and should have, moved much more quickly to correct the problem. As retired General Paul Kern, who headed the Army Materiel Command until last November, said, ". . . It took too long to materialize." He said, "In retrospect, if I had it to do all over, I would have just started building up-armored Humvees. The most efficient way would have been to build a single production line and feed everything into it."

In April, GAO released a report that clearly identifies the struggles the Pentagon has faced. In August 2003, only fifty-one Up-Armored Humvees were being produced a month. It took the industrial base a year and a half to work up to making 400 a month. Now the Army says they can now get delivery of 550 a month. The question is, why did it take so long? Why did we go to war without the proper equipment? Why didn't we fix it sooner, before so many troops have died?

According to GAO, there are two primary causes for the shortage of up-armored vehicles and add-on-armor kits.

First, a decision was made to ramp-up production gradually rather than use the maximum available capacity.

Second, funding allocations did not keep up with rapidly increasing requirements. Obviously, the Pentagon was still being influenced by its cakewalk mentality.

The GAO report specifically states that Pentagon decision-makers set the rate at which both up-armored Humvees and armor kits would be produced, and did not tell Congress about the total available production capacity. GAO was unable to determine what criteria were used to set the rate of production. In both cases, additional production capacity was available, particularly for the kits.

The delay was unconscionable. Without this amendment, the production rate of Up-armored humvees could drop off again later this year. We need to guarantee that we are doing everything possible to get the protection to our troops as soon as possible. We owe it to them, to their families here at home and to the American people.

We need to make sure our troops overseas have the best equipment available to protect them in combat. They also need to have the same equipment to train with at the Joint Readiness Center and the money in this amendment will ensure that happens.

The amendment contributes significantly to this goal, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Alaska.

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, on a recent trip to Iraq, we saw the up- armoring taking place in country. They are doing it now in specially created circumstances there. But beyond that, we have funded the total capacity of the plants in the United States to produce up-armor. We have done everything we can. If we can find additional capacity, we have another supplemental coming in the spring, we will join the Senator in urging more money. But we have used every dollar we can for up-armoring in the plants and in facilities. You should see the Oshkosh plant over there. They are up-armoring trucks and all sorts of vehicles now in country.

I urge the Senate to understand this amendment is duplicative. We already provided the maximum amount before us that we can possibly spend with the existing capacity of the system now, $240 million for humvees, $150 million for the Army tactical wheeled vehicle. In addition to that, we are sending strikers now. We visited strikers in the Mosul area. They are enormous systems, and they are already armored. They don't have to be up-armored. We need more strikers, more armored vehicles, but we are doing the best we can. And we are using every bit of capacity the system has. This amendment will be duplicative of that funding.

I oppose the Senator's amendment despite my admiration for him and insistence that we do the maximum possible in armoring our vehicles.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senator Bayh.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Byrd: I thank my colleague.

Mr. Bayh: I thank my colleague from West Virginia.

The Presiding Officer: Is all time yielded back?

Mr. Stevens: I yield back my time.

Mr. Bayh: I yield back my time.

The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment No. 1933.

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

The Presiding Officer: They have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. Durbin: I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) is necessarily absent.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Alexander): Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 248 Leg.]

YEAS--56
Akaka	Clinton	Harkin	Lincoln	Salazar
Alexander	Coleman	Jeffords	Lugar	Sarbanes
Allen	Collins	Johnson	Mikulski	Schumer
Baucus	Conrad	Kennedy	Murray	Snowe
Bayh	Dayton	Kerry	Nelson (FL)	Specter
Biden	DeWine	Kohl	Nelson (NE)	Stabenow
Bingaman	Dodd	Landrieu	Obama	Talent
Boxer	Dorgan	Lautenberg	Pryor	Thune
Byrd	Durbin	Leahy	Reed	Voinovich
Cantwell	Feingold	Levin	Reid	Warner
Carper	Feinstein	Lieberman	Rockefeller	Wyden
Chafee
NAYS--43
Allard	Cochran	Frist	Isakson	Santorum
Bennett	Cornyn	Graham	Kyl	Sessions
Bond	Craig	Grassley	Lott	Shelby
Brownback	Crapo	Gregg	Martinez	Smith
Bunning	DeMint	Hagel	McCain	Stevens
Burns	Dole	Hatch	McConnell	Sununu
Burr	Domenici	Hutchison	Murkowski	Thomas
Chambliss	Ensign	Inhofe	Roberts	Vitter
Coburn	Enzi	Inouye
NOT VOTING--1
Corzine

The Presiding Officer: On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 43. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.

Mr. Bayh: Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. Stevens: I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.